Vice President Kamala Harris is set to announce on Friday plans to cap the price of insulin and impose limits on household spending on prescription drugs, populist measures that would go beyond the policies implemented by President Joe Biden and are aimed at shoring up middle-class support in the election.

Harris’s campaign said Friday that she would expand the Inflation Reduction Act’s $35 cap on insulin prices to the entire country. Currently, the cap applies only to beneficiaries of Medicare, the government program for seniors and people with disabilities.

She also plans to mandate that all health insurance plans require a $2,000 out-of-pocket maximum for prescription drugs, a provision that is supposed to take effect under the IRA for Medicare beneficiaries in 2025.

Harris’s plan to impose lower prices for all people rather than just Medicare patients will likely require an additional act from Congress. When the IRA was passed in 2022, Harris was the tiebreaking vote in the Senate, and no Republicans in either chamber voted for the legislation.

The effects on the budget for expanding the cap on insulin and out-of-pocket prescription costs are also largely unknown.

The $2,000 out-of-pocket prescription cap for Medicare beneficiaries was estimated to increase federal spending by $30 billion between 2022 and 2031, according to the nonprofit healthcare think tank KFF. The insulin cap was estimated to cost approximately $5.1 billion during the same period.

Harris joined President Joe Biden at a rally on Thursday celebrating the two-year anniversary of the IRA. Biden said that expanding the cap on the price of insulin beyond Medicare beneficiaries will be a priority for the remainder of his administration.

“The next three months we got here — I’m not leaving here — and Kamala, when she’s president, is going to make sure we get it done. Everybody should qualify for that $35. Every American. I mean it,” Biden said in Prince George’s County, Maryland.

Harris also announced on Friday that her administration intends to accelerate the speed of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, which allows the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies for the price of prescriptions. 

The first round of negotiated maximum fair prices for the 10 most expensive drugs to the Medicare program, announced by CMS this week, will take effect in 2026. 

The first two rounds of negotiations only apply to Medicare Part D drugs, or those that are administered at home by patients themselves. Up to 20 drugs, including Medicare Part B prescriptions, or those administered in hospital settings such as chemotherapy, will be up for negotiations, with prices to take effect in 2028.

“Building on the Biden-Harris administration’s work to allow Medicare to negotiate the price of prescription drugs and cut the cost of some of the most expensive and most commonly used drugs by nearly 40% to 80% starting in 2026, Vice President Harris will allow Medicare to accelerate the speed of negotiations so the prices of more drugs come down faster,” Friday’s announcement from the Harris-Walz campaign noted. 

The measure seems to follow another of the expansions teased by Biden in recent weeks.

Biden, along with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), in July wrote an opinion piece calling for pharmaceutical companies to lower the prices of their products voluntarily. The piece also alluded to legislation in the works to increase the number of drugs up for price negotiations each year from 20 to 50.

Friday’s announcement is the first concrete declaration of Harris’s healthcare policies since starting her campaign for president last month following Biden’s move no longer to seek reelection. 

During her bid for the 2020 Democratic nomination, Harris initially supported Sanders’s “Medicare for All” plan, which would have eliminated any role for private insurance. 

She subsequently during the campaign drafted her own version of Medicare for All that allowed some room for a heavily regulated private insurance market, which was criticized by both sides of the aisle as a flip-flop.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Although the legislative path forward on expanding these Biden-era policies to private plans is unclear, there may be bipartisan support for some of the measures included in Harris’s plan. 

Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, for example, supported the idea of Medicare being able to negotiate directly the price of prescriptions during his 2022 Senate campaign for Ohio.

2024-08-16 15:18:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fpolicy%2Fhealthcare%2F3123925%2Fharris-proposes-expanding-prescription-drug-price-caps-populist-bid-presidency%2F?w=600&h=450, Vice President Kamala Harris is set to announce on Friday plans to cap the price of insulin and impose limits on household spending on prescription drugs, populist measures that would go beyond the policies implemented by President Joe Biden and are aimed at shoring up middle-class support in the election. Harris’s campaign said Friday that,

Vice President Kamala Harris is set to announce on Friday plans to cap the price of insulin and impose limits on household spending on prescription drugs, populist measures that would go beyond the policies implemented by President Joe Biden and are aimed at shoring up middle-class support in the election.

Harris’s campaign said Friday that she would expand the Inflation Reduction Act’s $35 cap on insulin prices to the entire country. Currently, the cap applies only to beneficiaries of Medicare, the government program for seniors and people with disabilities.

She also plans to mandate that all health insurance plans require a $2,000 out-of-pocket maximum for prescription drugs, a provision that is supposed to take effect under the IRA for Medicare beneficiaries in 2025.

Harris’s plan to impose lower prices for all people rather than just Medicare patients will likely require an additional act from Congress. When the IRA was passed in 2022, Harris was the tiebreaking vote in the Senate, and no Republicans in either chamber voted for the legislation.

The effects on the budget for expanding the cap on insulin and out-of-pocket prescription costs are also largely unknown.

The $2,000 out-of-pocket prescription cap for Medicare beneficiaries was estimated to increase federal spending by $30 billion between 2022 and 2031, according to the nonprofit healthcare think tank KFF. The insulin cap was estimated to cost approximately $5.1 billion during the same period.

Harris joined President Joe Biden at a rally on Thursday celebrating the two-year anniversary of the IRA. Biden said that expanding the cap on the price of insulin beyond Medicare beneficiaries will be a priority for the remainder of his administration.

“The next three months we got here — I’m not leaving here — and Kamala, when she’s president, is going to make sure we get it done. Everybody should qualify for that $35. Every American. I mean it,” Biden said in Prince George’s County, Maryland.

Harris also announced on Friday that her administration intends to accelerate the speed of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, which allows the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies for the price of prescriptions. 

The first round of negotiated maximum fair prices for the 10 most expensive drugs to the Medicare program, announced by CMS this week, will take effect in 2026. 

The first two rounds of negotiations only apply to Medicare Part D drugs, or those that are administered at home by patients themselves. Up to 20 drugs, including Medicare Part B prescriptions, or those administered in hospital settings such as chemotherapy, will be up for negotiations, with prices to take effect in 2028.

“Building on the Biden-Harris administration’s work to allow Medicare to negotiate the price of prescription drugs and cut the cost of some of the most expensive and most commonly used drugs by nearly 40% to 80% starting in 2026, Vice President Harris will allow Medicare to accelerate the speed of negotiations so the prices of more drugs come down faster,” Friday’s announcement from the Harris-Walz campaign noted. 

The measure seems to follow another of the expansions teased by Biden in recent weeks.

Biden, along with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), in July wrote an opinion piece calling for pharmaceutical companies to lower the prices of their products voluntarily. The piece also alluded to legislation in the works to increase the number of drugs up for price negotiations each year from 20 to 50.

Friday’s announcement is the first concrete declaration of Harris’s healthcare policies since starting her campaign for president last month following Biden’s move no longer to seek reelection. 

During her bid for the 2020 Democratic nomination, Harris initially supported Sanders’s “Medicare for All” plan, which would have eliminated any role for private insurance. 

She subsequently during the campaign drafted her own version of Medicare for All that allowed some room for a heavily regulated private insurance market, which was criticized by both sides of the aisle as a flip-flop.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Although the legislative path forward on expanding these Biden-era policies to private plans is unclear, there may be bipartisan support for some of the measures included in Harris’s plan. 

Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, for example, supported the idea of Medicare being able to negotiate directly the price of prescriptions during his 2022 Senate campaign for Ohio.

, Vice President Kamala Harris is set to announce on Friday plans to cap the price of insulin and impose limits on household spending on prescription drugs, populist measures that would go beyond the policies implemented by President Joe Biden and are aimed at shoring up middle-class support in the election. Harris’s campaign said Friday that she would expand the Inflation Reduction Act’s $35 cap on insulin prices to the entire country. Currently, the cap applies only to beneficiaries of Medicare, the government program for seniors and people with disabilities. She also plans to mandate that all health insurance plans require a $2,000 out-of-pocket maximum for prescription drugs, a provision that is supposed to take effect under the IRA for Medicare beneficiaries in 2025. Harris’s plan to impose lower prices for all people rather than just Medicare patients will likely require an additional act from Congress. When the IRA was passed in 2022, Harris was the tiebreaking vote in the Senate, and no Republicans in either chamber voted for the legislation. The effects on the budget for expanding the cap on insulin and out-of-pocket prescription costs are also largely unknown. The $2,000 out-of-pocket prescription cap for Medicare beneficiaries was estimated to increase federal spending by $30 billion between 2022 and 2031, according to the nonprofit healthcare think tank KFF. The insulin cap was estimated to cost approximately $5.1 billion during the same period. Harris joined President Joe Biden at a rally on Thursday celebrating the two-year anniversary of the IRA. Biden said that expanding the cap on the price of insulin beyond Medicare beneficiaries will be a priority for the remainder of his administration. “The next three months we got here — I’m not leaving here — and Kamala, when she’s president, is going to make sure we get it done. Everybody should qualify for that $35. Every American. I mean it,” Biden said in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Harris also announced on Friday that her administration intends to accelerate the speed of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, which allows the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies for the price of prescriptions.  The first round of negotiated maximum fair prices for the 10 most expensive drugs to the Medicare program, announced by CMS this week, will take effect in 2026.  The first two rounds of negotiations only apply to Medicare Part D drugs, or those that are administered at home by patients themselves. Up to 20 drugs, including Medicare Part B prescriptions, or those administered in hospital settings such as chemotherapy, will be up for negotiations, with prices to take effect in 2028. “Building on the Biden-Harris administration’s work to allow Medicare to negotiate the price of prescription drugs and cut the cost of some of the most expensive and most commonly used drugs by nearly 40% to 80% starting in 2026, Vice President Harris will allow Medicare to accelerate the speed of negotiations so the prices of more drugs come down faster,” Friday’s announcement from the Harris-Walz campaign noted.  The measure seems to follow another of the expansions teased by Biden in recent weeks. Biden, along with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), in July wrote an opinion piece calling for pharmaceutical companies to lower the prices of their products voluntarily. The piece also alluded to legislation in the works to increase the number of drugs up for price negotiations each year from 20 to 50. Friday’s announcement is the first concrete declaration of Harris’s healthcare policies since starting her campaign for president last month following Biden’s move no longer to seek reelection.  During her bid for the 2020 Democratic nomination, Harris initially supported Sanders’s “Medicare for All” plan, which would have eliminated any role for private insurance.  She subsequently during the campaign drafted her own version of Medicare for All that allowed some room for a heavily regulated private insurance market, which was criticized by both sides of the aisle as a flip-flop. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Although the legislative path forward on expanding these Biden-era policies to private plans is unclear, there may be bipartisan support for some of the measures included in Harris’s plan.  Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, for example, supported the idea of Medicare being able to negotiate directly the price of prescriptions during his 2022 Senate campaign for Ohio., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/AP24228665372944.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Gabrielle M. Etzel,

The Food and Drug Administration on Friday afternoon announced it is denying the use of MDMA-assisted therapy for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder, a major setback for the 13 million people looking for a new treatment for the mental health disorder.

The public health agency was expected to release the decision on the approval of the ecstasy-based drug the week of Aug. 12.

Veterans advocacy organizations had increased lobbying efforts for the Biden administration to greenlight the treatment in the several weeks after an FDA advisory committee recommended not to approve the drug.

Earlier this week, a bipartisan group of 61 House members and 19 senators wrote to President Joe Biden and FDA Commissioner Robert Califf in support of approving MDMA-AT for the treatment of PTSD to combat the veteran suicide crisis.

Since 9/11, 150,000 veterans have taken their own lives, which is more than 21 times the number of people from the United States who lost their lives in active war zones since 2001.

There has not been a new treatment for PTSD for nearly 25 years.

The FDA’s decision was largely based upon flaws in the administration of the clinical trials for the MDMA-assisted therapy conducted by Lykos Therapeutics, the makers of the medication.

One chief problem, discussed in-depth during the advisory committee meeting in June, was that patients in the trial were able to correctly identify whether or not they were given MDMA or a placebo, which is a common problem when testing psychedelics.

Instead of a direct denial of approval, the FDA issued a complete response letter, or a CRL, for the new drug application, requesting that Lykos conduct additional clinical trials to assess the safety and efficacy.

Lykos said in a press statement on Friday that company representatives intend to meet with the FDA to ask for reconsideration and to further discuss the agency’s recommendations for resubmission.

CEO of Lycos Amy Emerson said the request for further study “is deeply disappointing, not just for all those who dedicated their lives to this pioneering effort, but principally for the millions of Americans with PTSD, along with their loved ones, who have not seen any new treatment options in over two decades.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The advocacy group Veterans Exploring Treatment Solutions, or VETS, called the development “merely another hurdle in our ongoing mission to end the veteran suicide epidemic.”

“To the FDA: We respect your commitment to safety, but we implore you to consider the cost of inaction,” reads VETS’s statement on the decision. “Every delay means more lives lost to the invisible wounds of war.”

A spokesperson for the groups Heroic Hearts Project and Healing Breakthrough called the FDA’s decision “a missed opportunity to embrace groundbreaking science, save countless Veteran lives, and honor the sacrifices made by those who served our country.”

“The FDA’s decision is If this critical treatment remains inaccessible, we face losing an additional 6,000 Veterans to suicide this year alone — and every year thereafter,” said the spokesperson.

2024-08-09 21:56:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fpolicy%2Fhealthcare%2F3117272%2Ffda-denies-mdma-assisted-therapy-for-ptsd%2F?w=600&h=450, The Food and Drug Administration on Friday afternoon announced it is denying the use of MDMA-assisted therapy for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder, a major setback for the 13 million people looking for a new treatment for the mental health disorder. The public health agency was expected to release the decision on the approval,

The Food and Drug Administration on Friday afternoon announced it is denying the use of MDMA-assisted therapy for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder, a major setback for the 13 million people looking for a new treatment for the mental health disorder.

The public health agency was expected to release the decision on the approval of the ecstasy-based drug the week of Aug. 12.

Veterans advocacy organizations had increased lobbying efforts for the Biden administration to greenlight the treatment in the several weeks after an FDA advisory committee recommended not to approve the drug.

Earlier this week, a bipartisan group of 61 House members and 19 senators wrote to President Joe Biden and FDA Commissioner Robert Califf in support of approving MDMA-AT for the treatment of PTSD to combat the veteran suicide crisis.

Since 9/11, 150,000 veterans have taken their own lives, which is more than 21 times the number of people from the United States who lost their lives in active war zones since 2001.

There has not been a new treatment for PTSD for nearly 25 years.

The FDA’s decision was largely based upon flaws in the administration of the clinical trials for the MDMA-assisted therapy conducted by Lykos Therapeutics, the makers of the medication.

One chief problem, discussed in-depth during the advisory committee meeting in June, was that patients in the trial were able to correctly identify whether or not they were given MDMA or a placebo, which is a common problem when testing psychedelics.

Instead of a direct denial of approval, the FDA issued a complete response letter, or a CRL, for the new drug application, requesting that Lykos conduct additional clinical trials to assess the safety and efficacy.

Lykos said in a press statement on Friday that company representatives intend to meet with the FDA to ask for reconsideration and to further discuss the agency’s recommendations for resubmission.

CEO of Lycos Amy Emerson said the request for further study “is deeply disappointing, not just for all those who dedicated their lives to this pioneering effort, but principally for the millions of Americans with PTSD, along with their loved ones, who have not seen any new treatment options in over two decades.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The advocacy group Veterans Exploring Treatment Solutions, or VETS, called the development “merely another hurdle in our ongoing mission to end the veteran suicide epidemic.”

“To the FDA: We respect your commitment to safety, but we implore you to consider the cost of inaction,” reads VETS’s statement on the decision. “Every delay means more lives lost to the invisible wounds of war.”

A spokesperson for the groups Heroic Hearts Project and Healing Breakthrough called the FDA’s decision “a missed opportunity to embrace groundbreaking science, save countless Veteran lives, and honor the sacrifices made by those who served our country.”

“The FDA’s decision is If this critical treatment remains inaccessible, we face losing an additional 6,000 Veterans to suicide this year alone — and every year thereafter,” said the spokesperson.

, The Food and Drug Administration on Friday afternoon announced it is denying the use of MDMA-assisted therapy for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder, a major setback for the 13 million people looking for a new treatment for the mental health disorder. The public health agency was expected to release the decision on the approval of the ecstasy-based drug the week of Aug. 12. Veterans advocacy organizations had increased lobbying efforts for the Biden administration to greenlight the treatment in the several weeks after an FDA advisory committee recommended not to approve the drug. Earlier this week, a bipartisan group of 61 House members and 19 senators wrote to President Joe Biden and FDA Commissioner Robert Califf in support of approving MDMA-AT for the treatment of PTSD to combat the veteran suicide crisis. Since 9/11, 150,000 veterans have taken their own lives, which is more than 21 times the number of people from the United States who lost their lives in active war zones since 2001. There has not been a new treatment for PTSD for nearly 25 years. The FDA’s decision was largely based upon flaws in the administration of the clinical trials for the MDMA-assisted therapy conducted by Lykos Therapeutics, the makers of the medication. One chief problem, discussed in-depth during the advisory committee meeting in June, was that patients in the trial were able to correctly identify whether or not they were given MDMA or a placebo, which is a common problem when testing psychedelics. Instead of a direct denial of approval, the FDA issued a complete response letter, or a CRL, for the new drug application, requesting that Lykos conduct additional clinical trials to assess the safety and efficacy. Lykos said in a press statement on Friday that company representatives intend to meet with the FDA to ask for reconsideration and to further discuss the agency’s recommendations for resubmission. CEO of Lycos Amy Emerson said the request for further study “is deeply disappointing, not just for all those who dedicated their lives to this pioneering effort, but principally for the millions of Americans with PTSD, along with their loved ones, who have not seen any new treatment options in over two decades.” CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER The advocacy group Veterans Exploring Treatment Solutions, or VETS, called the development “merely another hurdle in our ongoing mission to end the veteran suicide epidemic.” “To the FDA: We respect your commitment to safety, but we implore you to consider the cost of inaction,” reads VETS’s statement on the decision. “Every delay means more lives lost to the invisible wounds of war.” A spokesperson for the groups Heroic Hearts Project and Healing Breakthrough called the FDA’s decision “a missed opportunity to embrace groundbreaking science, save countless Veteran lives, and honor the sacrifices made by those who served our country.” “The FDA’s decision is If this critical treatment remains inaccessible, we face losing an additional 6,000 Veterans to suicide this year alone — and every year thereafter,” said the spokesperson., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/AP24096562283737-1024×682.jpg, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Gabrielle M. Etzel,

Video footage captured in 2015 by an anti-abortion activist that was suppressed by then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris was released Thursday, revealing discussions among Planned Parenthood executives about the handling of body parts of fetuses aborted in the late second trimester, which activists have alleged amount to an admission of wrongdoing.

The video was recorded by David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress, who, with a colleague in 2015, went undercover to the National Abortion Federation’s commercial trade show.

Since July 2015, the videos have been suppressed following a court injunction that was lifted in May following their incorporation into the federal congressional record during a hearing on abortion hosted by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA).

As Daleiden faces criminal charges for recording the videos surreptitiously, Harris’s role as attorney general of California at the onset of the case is likely to draw more attention as she campaigns for the presidency.

Content of the suppressed videos

In two different videos published on Thursday, Daleiden talks with the chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Dr. Ann Schutt-Ainé, and the branch’s vice president of abortion access, Tram Nguyen. PPGC, based in Houston, closed following the federal Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in June 2022.

One of the videos shows both Schutt-Ainé and Nguyen describing how they take measures to avoid prosecution under the federal partial-birth abortion ban by dismembering the fetus while it is partially outside the womb to preserve the internal organs of the fetus for harvesting.

“If I’m doing a procedure, and I’m seeing that I’m in fear that it’s about to come to the umbilicus [navel], I might ask for a second set of forceps to hold the body at the cervix and pull off a leg, or two, so it’s not PBA,” Schutt-Ainé said in the video.

In a different video, Nguyen describes for Daleiden one scenario in which a minor patient’s discomfort required the physician “to hurry up” and compared it to “other days [when] it’s more intact, where it’s, like, maybe only, like, an arm that’s disarticulated.”

Later in the video, Nguyen describes how awkward discussing fetal tissue can be, remarking, “I’m like, ‘Yeah, I have like a leg for you.’ I’m like, oh s***, if other people were to hear me, they’d be like, you are f***ing evil.”

During the entire controversy, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America has maintained that it does not profit commercially from aborted fetal tissue from second- or third-trimester abortions but rather donates fetal tissue for scientific research.

During the height of the controversy in 2015, the National Abortion Federation issued a statement saying that it supports the use of aborted fetal tissue for scientific research that “has the potential to help millions of Americans suffering from diabetes, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, muscular dystrophy, leukemia, and other serious medical conditions.”

“Medical progress should not be impeded by those whose agenda is to demonize abortion providers and make abortion care inaccessible for women,” the 2015 NAF statement reads. “We cannot allow underhanded, misleading tactics by anti-abortion extremists to stigmatize life-saving medical research.”

Harris’s role in the Daleiden investigation

Harris was attorney general of California at the time and was directly involved in the prosecution of Daleiden. This includes the controversial decision to raid Daleiden’s home, during which officers took his personal laptop and multiple hard drives.

Letters obtained from court documents from Harris’s time as attorney general reveal that she had met with Planned Parenthood executives prior to the raid on Daleiden’s home that resulted in the seizure of the videos.

At the time, Harris was running for California’s open Senate seat and had been endorsed by Planned Parenthood.

Harris drew fire following the raid from anti-abortion groups, who said that it was a significant conflict of interest.

Nearly 10 years later, anti-abortion advocates are reviving interest in the case, arguing that Harris abused the California Department of Justice for political motives while in office.

Most recent updates in the case

The legal battle regarding these videos has continued for the past nine years with no end in sight.

In March, Daleiden used portions of the enjoined video during a congressional hearing hosted by Greene titled “Investigating Baby Organ Harvesting Black Market.” Following the hearing, Daleiden posted unredacted videos on his social media accounts, arguing that doing so did not violate the injunction because it was footage that had been incorporated into the federal congressional record.

Daleiden still could face prison time in California and is fighting eight felony charges for making the videos without permission to record, as well as using a fake driver’s license to enter the PPGC offices in Houston under false pretenses.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

A tentative trial date has been set for December in the San Francisco Superior Court.

The Center for Medical Progress did not respond to the Washington Examiner’s request for comment on the status of the case.

2024-08-08 21:22:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fpolicy%2Fhealthcare%2F3115477%2Fplanned-parenthood-sting-video-suppressed-by-harris-released%2F?w=600&h=450, Video footage captured in 2015 by an anti-abortion activist that was suppressed by then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris was released Thursday, revealing discussions among Planned Parenthood executives about the handling of body parts of fetuses aborted in the late second trimester, which activists have alleged amount to an admission of wrongdoing. The video was recorded,

Video footage captured in 2015 by an anti-abortion activist that was suppressed by then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris was released Thursday, revealing discussions among Planned Parenthood executives about the handling of body parts of fetuses aborted in the late second trimester, which activists have alleged amount to an admission of wrongdoing.

The video was recorded by David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress, who, with a colleague in 2015, went undercover to the National Abortion Federation’s commercial trade show.

Since July 2015, the videos have been suppressed following a court injunction that was lifted in May following their incorporation into the federal congressional record during a hearing on abortion hosted by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA).

As Daleiden faces criminal charges for recording the videos surreptitiously, Harris’s role as attorney general of California at the onset of the case is likely to draw more attention as she campaigns for the presidency.

Content of the suppressed videos

In two different videos published on Thursday, Daleiden talks with the chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Dr. Ann Schutt-Ainé, and the branch’s vice president of abortion access, Tram Nguyen. PPGC, based in Houston, closed following the federal Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in June 2022.

One of the videos shows both Schutt-Ainé and Nguyen describing how they take measures to avoid prosecution under the federal partial-birth abortion ban by dismembering the fetus while it is partially outside the womb to preserve the internal organs of the fetus for harvesting.

“If I’m doing a procedure, and I’m seeing that I’m in fear that it’s about to come to the umbilicus [navel], I might ask for a second set of forceps to hold the body at the cervix and pull off a leg, or two, so it’s not PBA,” Schutt-Ainé said in the video.

In a different video, Nguyen describes for Daleiden one scenario in which a minor patient’s discomfort required the physician “to hurry up” and compared it to “other days [when] it’s more intact, where it’s, like, maybe only, like, an arm that’s disarticulated.”

Later in the video, Nguyen describes how awkward discussing fetal tissue can be, remarking, “I’m like, ‘Yeah, I have like a leg for you.’ I’m like, oh s***, if other people were to hear me, they’d be like, you are f***ing evil.”

During the entire controversy, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America has maintained that it does not profit commercially from aborted fetal tissue from second- or third-trimester abortions but rather donates fetal tissue for scientific research.

During the height of the controversy in 2015, the National Abortion Federation issued a statement saying that it supports the use of aborted fetal tissue for scientific research that “has the potential to help millions of Americans suffering from diabetes, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, muscular dystrophy, leukemia, and other serious medical conditions.”

“Medical progress should not be impeded by those whose agenda is to demonize abortion providers and make abortion care inaccessible for women,” the 2015 NAF statement reads. “We cannot allow underhanded, misleading tactics by anti-abortion extremists to stigmatize life-saving medical research.”

Harris’s role in the Daleiden investigation

Harris was attorney general of California at the time and was directly involved in the prosecution of Daleiden. This includes the controversial decision to raid Daleiden’s home, during which officers took his personal laptop and multiple hard drives.

Letters obtained from court documents from Harris’s time as attorney general reveal that she had met with Planned Parenthood executives prior to the raid on Daleiden’s home that resulted in the seizure of the videos.

At the time, Harris was running for California’s open Senate seat and had been endorsed by Planned Parenthood.

Harris drew fire following the raid from anti-abortion groups, who said that it was a significant conflict of interest.

Nearly 10 years later, anti-abortion advocates are reviving interest in the case, arguing that Harris abused the California Department of Justice for political motives while in office.

Most recent updates in the case

The legal battle regarding these videos has continued for the past nine years with no end in sight.

In March, Daleiden used portions of the enjoined video during a congressional hearing hosted by Greene titled “Investigating Baby Organ Harvesting Black Market.” Following the hearing, Daleiden posted unredacted videos on his social media accounts, arguing that doing so did not violate the injunction because it was footage that had been incorporated into the federal congressional record.

Daleiden still could face prison time in California and is fighting eight felony charges for making the videos without permission to record, as well as using a fake driver’s license to enter the PPGC offices in Houston under false pretenses.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

A tentative trial date has been set for December in the San Francisco Superior Court.

The Center for Medical Progress did not respond to the Washington Examiner’s request for comment on the status of the case.

, Video footage captured in 2015 by an anti-abortion activist that was suppressed by then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris was released Thursday, revealing discussions among Planned Parenthood executives about the handling of body parts of fetuses aborted in the late second trimester, which activists have alleged amount to an admission of wrongdoing. The video was recorded by David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress, who, with a colleague in 2015, went undercover to the National Abortion Federation’s commercial trade show. Since July 2015, the videos have been suppressed following a court injunction that was lifted in May following their incorporation into the federal congressional record during a hearing on abortion hosted by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA). As Daleiden faces criminal charges for recording the videos surreptitiously, Harris’s role as attorney general of California at the onset of the case is likely to draw more attention as she campaigns for the presidency. Content of the suppressed videos In two different videos published on Thursday, Daleiden talks with the chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Dr. Ann Schutt-Ainé, and the branch’s vice president of abortion access, Tram Nguyen. PPGC, based in Houston, closed following the federal Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in June 2022. One of the videos shows both Schutt-Ainé and Nguyen describing how they take measures to avoid prosecution under the federal partial-birth abortion ban by dismembering the fetus while it is partially outside the womb to preserve the internal organs of the fetus for harvesting. “If I’m doing a procedure, and I’m seeing that I’m in fear that it’s about to come to the umbilicus [navel], I might ask for a second set of forceps to hold the body at the cervix and pull off a leg, or two, so it’s not PBA,” Schutt-Ainé said in the video. In a different video, Nguyen describes for Daleiden one scenario in which a minor patient’s discomfort required the physician “to hurry up” and compared it to “other days [when] it’s more intact, where it’s, like, maybe only, like, an arm that’s disarticulated.” Later in the video, Nguyen describes how awkward discussing fetal tissue can be, remarking, “I’m like, ‘Yeah, I have like a leg for you.’ I’m like, oh s***, if other people were to hear me, they’d be like, you are f***ing evil.” During the entire controversy, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America has maintained that it does not profit commercially from aborted fetal tissue from second- or third-trimester abortions but rather donates fetal tissue for scientific research. During the height of the controversy in 2015, the National Abortion Federation issued a statement saying that it supports the use of aborted fetal tissue for scientific research that “has the potential to help millions of Americans suffering from diabetes, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, muscular dystrophy, leukemia, and other serious medical conditions.” “Medical progress should not be impeded by those whose agenda is to demonize abortion providers and make abortion care inaccessible for women,” the 2015 NAF statement reads. “We cannot allow underhanded, misleading tactics by anti-abortion extremists to stigmatize life-saving medical research.” Harris’s role in the Daleiden investigation Harris was attorney general of California at the time and was directly involved in the prosecution of Daleiden. This includes the controversial decision to raid Daleiden’s home, during which officers took his personal laptop and multiple hard drives. Letters obtained from court documents from Harris’s time as attorney general reveal that she had met with Planned Parenthood executives prior to the raid on Daleiden’s home that resulted in the seizure of the videos. At the time, Harris was running for California’s open Senate seat and had been endorsed by Planned Parenthood. Harris drew fire following the raid from anti-abortion groups, who said that it was a significant conflict of interest. Nearly 10 years later, anti-abortion advocates are reviving interest in the case, arguing that Harris abused the California Department of Justice for political motives while in office. Most recent updates in the case The legal battle regarding these videos has continued for the past nine years with no end in sight. In March, Daleiden used portions of the enjoined video during a congressional hearing hosted by Greene titled “Investigating Baby Organ Harvesting Black Market.” Following the hearing, Daleiden posted unredacted videos on his social media accounts, arguing that doing so did not violate the injunction because it was footage that had been incorporated into the federal congressional record. Daleiden still could face prison time in California and is fighting eight felony charges for making the videos without permission to record, as well as using a fake driver’s license to enter the PPGC offices in Houston under false pretenses. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER A tentative trial date has been set for December in the San Francisco Superior Court. The Center for Medical Progress did not respond to the Washington Examiner’s request for comment on the status of the case., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/kamala_harris_white_suit-2.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Gabrielle M. Etzel,

Members of the House and the Senate from both parties are asking the Biden administration to approve the use of MDMA-assisted therapy for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder to address the veteran suicide epidemic.

“Thousands of Veterans suffering from PTSD continue to take their lives each year. Current treatments clearly are not working well enough, and our Veterans can no longer wait,” a group of 61 House members wrote to President Joe Biden on Monday. The signatories included outspoken MDMA advocates Reps. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

The Food and Drug Administration is slated to announce on Sunday whether it will approve the use of MDMA-AT for the treatment of PTSD, which has not had a new treatment option approved for nearly 25 years.

Separately, 19 senators also petitioned FDA Commissioner Robert Califf to review the evidence impartially for efficacy of the treatment.

“If comprehensive evidence demonstrates that MDMA-AT is both effective and safe when administered in appropriate settings, it is our responsibility to ensure that this treatment option is made available to those who could benefit from it,” the senators, led by Sens. Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), wrote.

Between 17 and 44 veterans die by suicide each day, with more than 150,000 having taken their own lives since 9/11. That is more than 21 times the number of people from the United States who lost their lives in active war zones since 2001.

Clinical trials conducted by Lykos Therapeutics, makers of medical-grade MDMA, found that MDMA-AT effectively eliminated the PTSD diagnosis for 71% of trial participants, almost double the rate of current medication protocols for the disorder.

Approximately 86% of participants total showed a significant improvement in their conditions.

Advocates of the treatment suggest that MDMA, known to increase feelings of empathy and social connection, allows patients to better participate in traditional talk therapy to work through trauma.

Last month, an FDA advisory panel voted not to approve the experimental treatment, citing quality control troubles with Lykos’s studies. One factor was that some patients were able to identify whether they received the placebo, a common problem in testing psychedelics.

Although advice from the advisory committees is nonbinding, the agency only acts against their advice about one-third of the time.

The House members writing to Biden, however, directly challenged some of the criticism from the committee as “not necessarily reflective of the science, but rather their personal ideological beliefs and biases related to the medicalization of substances like MDMA.”

“If the data and evidence show that MDMA-AT is safe and effective at relieving the suffering that many Veterans face, then we owe it to them and the millions of others who are living with PTSD to make this treatment option available to them,” the House members wrote.

Neither the White House nor the FDA responded to the Washington Examiner’s request for comment at the time of publication.

2024-08-05 18:15:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fpolicy%2Fhealthcare%2F3110555%2Fbipartisan-house-senate-push-biden-mdma-treatment-ptsd%2F?w=600&h=450, Members of the House and the Senate from both parties are asking the Biden administration to approve the use of MDMA-assisted therapy for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder to address the veteran suicide epidemic. “Thousands of Veterans suffering from PTSD continue to take their lives each year. Current treatments clearly are not working well,

Members of the House and the Senate from both parties are asking the Biden administration to approve the use of MDMA-assisted therapy for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder to address the veteran suicide epidemic.

“Thousands of Veterans suffering from PTSD continue to take their lives each year. Current treatments clearly are not working well enough, and our Veterans can no longer wait,” a group of 61 House members wrote to President Joe Biden on Monday. The signatories included outspoken MDMA advocates Reps. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

The Food and Drug Administration is slated to announce on Sunday whether it will approve the use of MDMA-AT for the treatment of PTSD, which has not had a new treatment option approved for nearly 25 years.

Separately, 19 senators also petitioned FDA Commissioner Robert Califf to review the evidence impartially for efficacy of the treatment.

“If comprehensive evidence demonstrates that MDMA-AT is both effective and safe when administered in appropriate settings, it is our responsibility to ensure that this treatment option is made available to those who could benefit from it,” the senators, led by Sens. Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), wrote.

Between 17 and 44 veterans die by suicide each day, with more than 150,000 having taken their own lives since 9/11. That is more than 21 times the number of people from the United States who lost their lives in active war zones since 2001.

Clinical trials conducted by Lykos Therapeutics, makers of medical-grade MDMA, found that MDMA-AT effectively eliminated the PTSD diagnosis for 71% of trial participants, almost double the rate of current medication protocols for the disorder.

Approximately 86% of participants total showed a significant improvement in their conditions.

Advocates of the treatment suggest that MDMA, known to increase feelings of empathy and social connection, allows patients to better participate in traditional talk therapy to work through trauma.

Last month, an FDA advisory panel voted not to approve the experimental treatment, citing quality control troubles with Lykos’s studies. One factor was that some patients were able to identify whether they received the placebo, a common problem in testing psychedelics.

Although advice from the advisory committees is nonbinding, the agency only acts against their advice about one-third of the time.

The House members writing to Biden, however, directly challenged some of the criticism from the committee as “not necessarily reflective of the science, but rather their personal ideological beliefs and biases related to the medicalization of substances like MDMA.”

“If the data and evidence show that MDMA-AT is safe and effective at relieving the suffering that many Veterans face, then we owe it to them and the millions of others who are living with PTSD to make this treatment option available to them,” the House members wrote.

Neither the White House nor the FDA responded to the Washington Examiner’s request for comment at the time of publication.

, Members of the House and the Senate from both parties are asking the Biden administration to approve the use of MDMA-assisted therapy for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder to address the veteran suicide epidemic. “Thousands of Veterans suffering from PTSD continue to take their lives each year. Current treatments clearly are not working well enough, and our Veterans can no longer wait,” a group of 61 House members wrote to President Joe Biden on Monday. The signatories included outspoken MDMA advocates Reps. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). The Food and Drug Administration is slated to announce on Sunday whether it will approve the use of MDMA-AT for the treatment of PTSD, which has not had a new treatment option approved for nearly 25 years. Separately, 19 senators also petitioned FDA Commissioner Robert Califf to review the evidence impartially for efficacy of the treatment. “If comprehensive evidence demonstrates that MDMA-AT is both effective and safe when administered in appropriate settings, it is our responsibility to ensure that this treatment option is made available to those who could benefit from it,” the senators, led by Sens. Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), wrote. Between 17 and 44 veterans die by suicide each day, with more than 150,000 having taken their own lives since 9/11. That is more than 21 times the number of people from the United States who lost their lives in active war zones since 2001. Clinical trials conducted by Lykos Therapeutics, makers of medical-grade MDMA, found that MDMA-AT effectively eliminated the PTSD diagnosis for 71% of trial participants, almost double the rate of current medication protocols for the disorder. Approximately 86% of participants total showed a significant improvement in their conditions. Advocates of the treatment suggest that MDMA, known to increase feelings of empathy and social connection, allows patients to better participate in traditional talk therapy to work through trauma. Last month, an FDA advisory panel voted not to approve the experimental treatment, citing quality control troubles with Lykos’s studies. One factor was that some patients were able to identify whether they received the placebo, a common problem in testing psychedelics. Although advice from the advisory committees is nonbinding, the agency only acts against their advice about one-third of the time. The House members writing to Biden, however, directly challenged some of the criticism from the committee as “not necessarily reflective of the science, but rather their personal ideological beliefs and biases related to the medicalization of substances like MDMA.” “If the data and evidence show that MDMA-AT is safe and effective at relieving the suffering that many Veterans face, then we owe it to them and the millions of others who are living with PTSD to make this treatment option available to them,” the House members wrote. Neither the White House nor the FDA responded to the Washington Examiner’s request for comment at the time of publication., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Biden_national_guard_helicopter.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Gabrielle M. Etzel,

The Nebraska Supreme Court on Friday upheld laws restricting both abortion access after 12 weeks and transgender medicine for minors following a challenge that the measure violated the state’s constitutional obligation that all bills must stick to a single subject.

The state Supreme Court said that abortion and transgender medicine are “distinct types of medical care,” but the law combining regulations on both does not violate the single-subject rule because they both fall under the topic of healthcare.

The measures became entwined after Republican legislators failed to pass two separate bills, one limiting abortion after six weeks of pregnancy and the other restricting transgender hormone therapies for minors. 

The Republican-led legislature added the 12-week abortion provision to the existing transgender medicine bill following the success of a filibuster to block the six-week bill.

After Gov. Jim Pillen signed the combination health bill in May 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union, representing Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, sued on the grounds that the hybrid law violated the state constitutional requirement for single-subject legislation.

The lawsuit was dismissed by a district judge in August 2023, and the ACLU appealed.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Abortions in the state dropped by 25% in seven months following the passage of the abortion restrictions after 12 weeks gestation. By 12 weeks of pregnancy, a fetus has already grown a four-chambered heart that pumps more than six quarts of blood per day and has already beat over 10 million times.

Prior to the law, abortion was legal in Nebraska up until 22 weeks gestation, the approximate gestational age for fetal viability outside of the womb.

2024-07-26 15:33:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fpolicy%2Fhealthcare%2F3100668%2Fnebraska-supreme-court-upholds-12-week-abortion-ban-transgender-medicine%2F?w=600&h=450, The Nebraska Supreme Court on Friday upheld laws restricting both abortion access after 12 weeks and transgender medicine for minors following a challenge that the measure violated the state’s constitutional obligation that all bills must stick to a single subject. The state Supreme Court said that abortion and transgender medicine are “distinct types of medical,

The Nebraska Supreme Court on Friday upheld laws restricting both abortion access after 12 weeks and transgender medicine for minors following a challenge that the measure violated the state’s constitutional obligation that all bills must stick to a single subject.

The state Supreme Court said that abortion and transgender medicine are “distinct types of medical care,” but the law combining regulations on both does not violate the single-subject rule because they both fall under the topic of healthcare.

The measures became entwined after Republican legislators failed to pass two separate bills, one limiting abortion after six weeks of pregnancy and the other restricting transgender hormone therapies for minors. 

The Republican-led legislature added the 12-week abortion provision to the existing transgender medicine bill following the success of a filibuster to block the six-week bill.

After Gov. Jim Pillen signed the combination health bill in May 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union, representing Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, sued on the grounds that the hybrid law violated the state constitutional requirement for single-subject legislation.

The lawsuit was dismissed by a district judge in August 2023, and the ACLU appealed.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Abortions in the state dropped by 25% in seven months following the passage of the abortion restrictions after 12 weeks gestation. By 12 weeks of pregnancy, a fetus has already grown a four-chambered heart that pumps more than six quarts of blood per day and has already beat over 10 million times.

Prior to the law, abortion was legal in Nebraska up until 22 weeks gestation, the approximate gestational age for fetal viability outside of the womb.

, The Nebraska Supreme Court on Friday upheld laws restricting both abortion access after 12 weeks and transgender medicine for minors following a challenge that the measure violated the state’s constitutional obligation that all bills must stick to a single subject. The state Supreme Court said that abortion and transgender medicine are “distinct types of medical care,” but the law combining regulations on both does not violate the single-subject rule because they both fall under the topic of healthcare. The measures became entwined after Republican legislators failed to pass two separate bills, one limiting abortion after six weeks of pregnancy and the other restricting transgender hormone therapies for minors.  The Republican-led legislature added the 12-week abortion provision to the existing transgender medicine bill following the success of a filibuster to block the six-week bill. After Gov. Jim Pillen signed the combination health bill in May 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union, representing Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, sued on the grounds that the hybrid law violated the state constitutional requirement for single-subject legislation. The lawsuit was dismissed by a district judge in August 2023, and the ACLU appealed. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Abortions in the state dropped by 25% in seven months following the passage of the abortion restrictions after 12 weeks gestation. By 12 weeks of pregnancy, a fetus has already grown a four-chambered heart that pumps more than six quarts of blood per day and has already beat over 10 million times. Prior to the law, abortion was legal in Nebraska up until 22 weeks gestation, the approximate gestational age for fetal viability outside of the womb., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/nebraska-abortion-protest.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Gabrielle M. Etzel,

The U.S. infant mortality rate rose in 2022, according to data released Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nearly 20,600 babies died before the age of 1, or 5.6 infant deaths for every 1,000 live births. This marks an increase of 3% from 2021, the largest year-over-year increase in 20 years.

Infant mortality in the U.S. continues to be higher than in most other industrialized countries, but the rate has trended downward since 1995, the first year the CDC was able to record the exact metric.

And despite the uptick, the infant mortality rate is still 19% lower than the last increase in 2002, at 6.95 infant deaths per 1,000 live births.

Nearly 20% of infant deaths in the U.S. are attributable to congenital malformations. Some of this rise may be due to several states’ restrictions on abortion following the overturning of Roe v. Wade in June 2022, with many women unable to choose abortion following the diagnosis of fetal anomaly.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Another 14% of infant deaths resulted from disorders related to short gestation periods and low birth weight, followed by sudden infant death syndrome and maternal complications.

Maternal health and infant mortality are highly correlated, and the U.S. has increasingly struggled in recent years with high maternal complication rates during pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum.

2024-07-25 14:16:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fpolicy%2Fhealthcare%2F3098808%2Fbiggest-jump-infant-mortality-rate-decades%2F?w=600&h=450, The U.S. infant mortality rate rose in 2022, according to data released Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nearly 20,600 babies died before the age of 1, or 5.6 infant deaths for every 1,000 live births. This marks an increase of 3% from 2021, the largest year-over-year increase in 20 years. Infant,

The U.S. infant mortality rate rose in 2022, according to data released Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nearly 20,600 babies died before the age of 1, or 5.6 infant deaths for every 1,000 live births. This marks an increase of 3% from 2021, the largest year-over-year increase in 20 years.

Infant mortality in the U.S. continues to be higher than in most other industrialized countries, but the rate has trended downward since 1995, the first year the CDC was able to record the exact metric.

And despite the uptick, the infant mortality rate is still 19% lower than the last increase in 2002, at 6.95 infant deaths per 1,000 live births.

Nearly 20% of infant deaths in the U.S. are attributable to congenital malformations. Some of this rise may be due to several states’ restrictions on abortion following the overturning of Roe v. Wade in June 2022, with many women unable to choose abortion following the diagnosis of fetal anomaly.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Another 14% of infant deaths resulted from disorders related to short gestation periods and low birth weight, followed by sudden infant death syndrome and maternal complications.

Maternal health and infant mortality are highly correlated, and the U.S. has increasingly struggled in recent years with high maternal complication rates during pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum.

, The U.S. infant mortality rate rose in 2022, according to data released Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Nearly 20,600 babies died before the age of 1, or 5.6 infant deaths for every 1,000 live births. This marks an increase of 3% from 2021, the largest year-over-year increase in 20 years. Infant mortality in the U.S. continues to be higher than in most other industrialized countries, but the rate has trended downward since 1995, the first year the CDC was able to record the exact metric. And despite the uptick, the infant mortality rate is still 19% lower than the last increase in 2002, at 6.95 infant deaths per 1,000 live births. Nearly 20% of infant deaths in the U.S. are attributable to congenital malformations. Some of this rise may be due to several states’ restrictions on abortion following the overturning of Roe v. Wade in June 2022, with many women unable to choose abortion following the diagnosis of fetal anomaly. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Another 14% of infant deaths resulted from disorders related to short gestation periods and low birth weight, followed by sudden infant death syndrome and maternal complications. Maternal health and infant mortality are highly correlated, and the U.S. has increasingly struggled in recent years with high maternal complication rates during pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/baby-toes-blanket.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Gabrielle M. Etzel,

Vice President Kamala Harris’s past support for “Medicare for all” places her well to the left of President Joe Biden and is likely to prove a liability for her as she seeks to win the 2024 presidential race.

As senator from California, Harris supported Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-VT) Medicare for all plan, which would have had the federal government provide all healthcare services as well as eliminate any role for private insurance. 

Harris also during a June 2019 debate, six months into her candidacy, endorsed the idea of abolishing all private health insurance, although she later tried to walk back her remarks as a statement about her personal preference rather than a policy position.

During the campaign, then-candidate Joe Biden pushed back against both Harris and Sanders in their progressive policy and instead took the more moderate approach of protecting Obamacare from Republican efforts to “repeal and replace” it.

Although her record on abolishing private insurance will likely be a heavy liability to overcome, Harris may choose to revive her own Medicare for all plan, published in July 2019, that would attempt to carve out a sliver of room for some private insurance market.

KamalaCare basics

Harris’s original plan for Medicare for all intended to “cover all medically necessary services,” from emergency room visits to vision and dental care. 

The plan also would have allowed for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate prescription drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies—a policy that was later rolled into the healthcare provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act for drugs covered by Medicare.

But several problems with the so-called “KamalaCare” plan drew ire from progressive and centrist factions of the Democratic Party.

The plan’s 10-year phase-in period, which was intended to lower costs and make implementation more feasible, was criticized as impracticable.

“We think that four years is as long as it should be, not 10 years,” Sanders told CNN in 2019 critiquing Harris’s plan.

Room for regulated private insurance

In an apparent attempt to offer a third way between Obamacare and Sanders’s complete abolition of private insurance, KamalaCare as proposed would have allowed some room for private insurance plans under tighter regulation from the Department of Health and Human Services.

“Essentially, we would allow private insurance to offer a plan in the Medicare system, but they will be subject to strict requirements to ensure it lowers costs and expands services,” wrote Harris at the time. “If they want to play by our rules, they can be in the system. If not, they have to get out.”

The suggestion of letting private insurance companies into a Medicare-based system generated significant criticism from within the party, including from Sanders. 

“What Medicare for All understands,” said Sanders at the time, “is that health care is a human right and the function of a sane health care system is not to make sure that insurance companies and drug companies make tens of billions of dollars in profit.”

Public support for private insurance

Harris’s past stance on healthcare places her well to the left of Biden. And her debate comment about abolishing private insurance is sure to feature in GOP ads.

Most Americans, event a sizable portion of Democrats, say there is some role for private insurance in the healthcare market.

A 2019 poll conducted around the time KamalaCare was introduced found that only one in 10 registered voters wanted an equivalent of Medicare for all if it required abolishing all private health insurance plans. In the same poll, 32% of voters desired a universal government-operated system that would have room for private supplemental insurance.

Four years later in 2023, following the upheavals of the COVID-19 pandemic, a Gallup poll found that, although 57% of Americans believed that the government should ensure healthcare for all in the U.S., 53% favored a system based on private insurance.

This even held true for partisans, with 26% of Democrats and 50% of Independents preferring a “system mostly based on private health insurance.”

The popularity of Medicare Advantage plans, or private supplemental insurance for seniors on Medicare, is highly indicative of Americans’s support for some role for private health insurance even within a nationalized system. Medicare Advantage enrollment has more than doubled since 2010, accounting for 54% of the Medicare-eligible population in 2024.

2024-07-22 11:36:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fpolicy%2Fhealthcare%2F3093259%2Fkamalacare-harris-backed-medicare-for-all-and-abolishing-private-insurance%2F?w=600&h=450, Vice President Kamala Harris’s past support for “Medicare for all” places her well to the left of President Joe Biden and is likely to prove a liability for her as she seeks to win the 2024 presidential race. As senator from California, Harris supported Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-VT) Medicare for all plan, which would have,

Vice President Kamala Harris’s past support for “Medicare for all” places her well to the left of President Joe Biden and is likely to prove a liability for her as she seeks to win the 2024 presidential race.

As senator from California, Harris supported Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-VT) Medicare for all plan, which would have had the federal government provide all healthcare services as well as eliminate any role for private insurance. 

Harris also during a June 2019 debate, six months into her candidacy, endorsed the idea of abolishing all private health insurance, although she later tried to walk back her remarks as a statement about her personal preference rather than a policy position.

During the campaign, then-candidate Joe Biden pushed back against both Harris and Sanders in their progressive policy and instead took the more moderate approach of protecting Obamacare from Republican efforts to “repeal and replace” it.

Although her record on abolishing private insurance will likely be a heavy liability to overcome, Harris may choose to revive her own Medicare for all plan, published in July 2019, that would attempt to carve out a sliver of room for some private insurance market.

KamalaCare basics

Harris’s original plan for Medicare for all intended to “cover all medically necessary services,” from emergency room visits to vision and dental care. 

The plan also would have allowed for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate prescription drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies—a policy that was later rolled into the healthcare provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act for drugs covered by Medicare.

But several problems with the so-called “KamalaCare” plan drew ire from progressive and centrist factions of the Democratic Party.

The plan’s 10-year phase-in period, which was intended to lower costs and make implementation more feasible, was criticized as impracticable.

“We think that four years is as long as it should be, not 10 years,” Sanders told CNN in 2019 critiquing Harris’s plan.

Room for regulated private insurance

In an apparent attempt to offer a third way between Obamacare and Sanders’s complete abolition of private insurance, KamalaCare as proposed would have allowed some room for private insurance plans under tighter regulation from the Department of Health and Human Services.

“Essentially, we would allow private insurance to offer a plan in the Medicare system, but they will be subject to strict requirements to ensure it lowers costs and expands services,” wrote Harris at the time. “If they want to play by our rules, they can be in the system. If not, they have to get out.”

The suggestion of letting private insurance companies into a Medicare-based system generated significant criticism from within the party, including from Sanders. 

“What Medicare for All understands,” said Sanders at the time, “is that health care is a human right and the function of a sane health care system is not to make sure that insurance companies and drug companies make tens of billions of dollars in profit.”

Public support for private insurance

Harris’s past stance on healthcare places her well to the left of Biden. And her debate comment about abolishing private insurance is sure to feature in GOP ads.

Most Americans, event a sizable portion of Democrats, say there is some role for private insurance in the healthcare market.

A 2019 poll conducted around the time KamalaCare was introduced found that only one in 10 registered voters wanted an equivalent of Medicare for all if it required abolishing all private health insurance plans. In the same poll, 32% of voters desired a universal government-operated system that would have room for private supplemental insurance.

Four years later in 2023, following the upheavals of the COVID-19 pandemic, a Gallup poll found that, although 57% of Americans believed that the government should ensure healthcare for all in the U.S., 53% favored a system based on private insurance.

This even held true for partisans, with 26% of Democrats and 50% of Independents preferring a “system mostly based on private health insurance.”

The popularity of Medicare Advantage plans, or private supplemental insurance for seniors on Medicare, is highly indicative of Americans’s support for some role for private health insurance even within a nationalized system. Medicare Advantage enrollment has more than doubled since 2010, accounting for 54% of the Medicare-eligible population in 2024.

, Vice President Kamala Harris’s past support for “Medicare for all” places her well to the left of President Joe Biden and is likely to prove a liability for her as she seeks to win the 2024 presidential race. As senator from California, Harris supported Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-VT) Medicare for all plan, which would have had the federal government provide all healthcare services as well as eliminate any role for private insurance.  Harris also during a June 2019 debate, six months into her candidacy, endorsed the idea of abolishing all private health insurance, although she later tried to walk back her remarks as a statement about her personal preference rather than a policy position. During the campaign, then-candidate Joe Biden pushed back against both Harris and Sanders in their progressive policy and instead took the more moderate approach of protecting Obamacare from Republican efforts to “repeal and replace” it. Although her record on abolishing private insurance will likely be a heavy liability to overcome, Harris may choose to revive her own Medicare for all plan, published in July 2019, that would attempt to carve out a sliver of room for some private insurance market. KamalaCare basics Harris’s original plan for Medicare for all intended to “cover all medically necessary services,” from emergency room visits to vision and dental care.  The plan also would have allowed for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate prescription drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies—a policy that was later rolled into the healthcare provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act for drugs covered by Medicare. But several problems with the so-called “KamalaCare” plan drew ire from progressive and centrist factions of the Democratic Party. The plan’s 10-year phase-in period, which was intended to lower costs and make implementation more feasible, was criticized as impracticable. “We think that four years is as long as it should be, not 10 years,” Sanders told CNN in 2019 critiquing Harris’s plan. Room for regulated private insurance In an apparent attempt to offer a third way between Obamacare and Sanders’s complete abolition of private insurance, KamalaCare as proposed would have allowed some room for private insurance plans under tighter regulation from the Department of Health and Human Services. “Essentially, we would allow private insurance to offer a plan in the Medicare system, but they will be subject to strict requirements to ensure it lowers costs and expands services,” wrote Harris at the time. “If they want to play by our rules, they can be in the system. If not, they have to get out.” The suggestion of letting private insurance companies into a Medicare-based system generated significant criticism from within the party, including from Sanders.  “What Medicare for All understands,” said Sanders at the time, “is that health care is a human right and the function of a sane health care system is not to make sure that insurance companies and drug companies make tens of billions of dollars in profit.” Public support for private insurance Harris’s past stance on healthcare places her well to the left of Biden. And her debate comment about abolishing private insurance is sure to feature in GOP ads. Most Americans, event a sizable portion of Democrats, say there is some role for private insurance in the healthcare market. A 2019 poll conducted around the time KamalaCare was introduced found that only one in 10 registered voters wanted an equivalent of Medicare for all if it required abolishing all private health insurance plans. In the same poll, 32% of voters desired a universal government-operated system that would have room for private supplemental insurance. Four years later in 2023, following the upheavals of the COVID-19 pandemic, a Gallup poll found that, although 57% of Americans believed that the government should ensure healthcare for all in the U.S., 53% favored a system based on private insurance. This even held true for partisans, with 26% of Democrats and 50% of Independents preferring a “system mostly based on private health insurance.” The popularity of Medicare Advantage plans, or private supplemental insurance for seniors on Medicare, is highly indicative of Americans’s support for some role for private health insurance even within a nationalized system. Medicare Advantage enrollment has more than doubled since 2010, accounting for 54% of the Medicare-eligible population in 2024., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/kamala-harris-policy-16.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Gabrielle M. Etzel,

Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX), a former White House physician, released a letter Saturday saying that former President Donald Trump is recovering as expected following the injury he sustained during the July 13 assassination attempt.

“The bullet passed, coming less than a quarter of an inch from entering his head, and struck the top of his right ear,” Jackson wrote in a letter that Trump published on Truth Social. “The bullet track produced a 2 cm wide wound.”

Jackson, whose nephew was injured at the event in Butler, Pennsylvania, said he has treated Trump’s wound daily since the incident and he is “doing well.”

Describing the position of the wound in a highly vascular portion of the ear, Jackson said there was “initially significant bleeding” and, although the wound is beginning to heal properly, “there is still intermittent bleeding requiring a dressing to be in place.”

Trump himself referenced the amount of blood he lost as a result of the shot during his nomination acceptance speech Thursday at the Republican National Convention, saying there was “blood all over the place.”

“The ears are the bloodiest part,” Trump said Thursday. “If something happens with the ears, they bleed more than any other part of the body. For whatever reason, the doctors told me that.”

The Republican presidential nominee did not provide any commentary along with the letter when he posted it on Truth Social.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Jackson said Trump received a CT scan of the head Saturday while at Butler Memorial Hospital and that the medical staff there “did an excellent job of evaluating him and treating his wound.”

“I am extremely thankful his life was spared,” Jackson wrote. “It is an absolute miracle he wasn’t killed.”

President Joe Biden’s campaign chairwoman held a meeting with staff on Friday, urging them not to listen to news coverage honing in on whether efforts to pressure Biden off the 2024 ticket will be successful.

The call, which was first reported by Axios, is the most recent example of Biden leadership trying to revive morale following the President’s disastrous debate showing late last month.

Campaign chairwoman Jen O’Malley Dillon told staff and the Democratic National Committee on Friday not to “watch cable news all the time.”

“That is not the real world,” said O’Malley Dillon.”The real world is the voters that are standing with us, the delegates that are with us, and we’re going to weather this because of this organization.”

She also added that “people in our country are not watching cable news.” 

O’Malley Dillon also reportedly said on the call that the president “sounds like sh*t” referencing his recent COVID diagnosis, but said that “he is doing the work” from Rehoboth.

Upwards of 35 Democrat members of Congress, including two Senators, have called on Biden to bow out of the race.

Sources close to Biden report that the President is growing increasingly frustrated with several elite players in his party, including former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former Pres. Barack Obama, who he believes has been playing a large role behind the scenes in the effort to get him to drop out.

One Biden aide told Axios under a condition of anonymity that it is “a fairly universal sentiment internally that we have reached the end of the road.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

But officially the Biden campaign moves forward hosting multiple high profile fundraising events in the coming weeks as well as potential campaign visits to Georgia and Texas.

The Biden campaign did not respond to the Washington Examiner with comment at the time of publication.